sure haven't:Felgraf: Mugato: Was the SCARY tag turned into a mutant by nanites?

As someone who works in nanophysics, we are actually REALLY REALLY REALLY far from true nanites. We're still even having difficulty making complex nanostructures (That is, combining multiple nanoparticles of different shapes). The two methods have their pitfalls: Top-down lithographic design/creation is limited by the wavelength of the beam you use: You can only make stuff so small. Bottom up chemical assembly has STUPID amounts of error and things sticking where they shouldn't. For instance, if you wanted to make a barbel-shape, and stick two spheres to the end of a rod... you'd also get spheres sticking together, to the sides of rods, rods making daisy-chains or compacting against each other, etc.

Basically, we have reached the "UG MAKE WHEEL" stage of nanotech-we can make a LOT of really interesting shapes (that in and of themselves have some impressive uses!), but we're still fiddling with "UG put stick THROUGH WHEEL. Make AXLE." step. Though in theory my thesis will help with that.

Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.

Honest question, as Ug progresses to making BMW's, is this a possible cure for cancer in the future?

I'm honestly not sure-this looks like it's more on the bio-end of things, which is a bit outside my field.

That said, even non-nanite nanotech actually have potential cancer treatment uses. Actually, something as simple as gold nanospheres (and, er, a laser) can be theoretically used for cancer treatment! It's really goddamn cool. I can elaborate if you want!

So yeah, nanotech will give us a lot more tools in the cancer-fighting toolbox. Maybe not a cure (since... well, it's hard to 'cure' "Your body is going bugfarknuts", but more ways to attack.)

Mugato:Felgraf: Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.

Yeah, I was kind of joking, Dr. Crusher.

Not a Ph.D. yet, alas (two more years, I hope...) that said, I guess I tend to get overexcited/eager to talk about nanostuff. I suppose it's good that I'm doing research in a field that excites me, at least!

As someone who works in nanophysics, we are actually REALLY REALLY REALLY far from true nanites. We're still even having difficulty making complex nanostructures (That is, combining multiple nanoparticles of different shapes). The two methods have their pitfalls: Top-down lithographic design/creation is limited by the wavelength of the beam you use: You can only make stuff so small. Bottom up chemical assembly has STUPID amounts of error and things sticking where they shouldn't. For instance, if you wanted to make a barbel-shape, and stick two spheres to the end of a rod... you'd also get spheres sticking together, to the sides of rods, rods making daisy-chains or compacting against each other, etc.

Basically, we have reached the "UG MAKE WHEEL" stage of nanotech-we can make a LOT of really interesting shapes (that in and of themselves have some impressive uses!), but we're still fiddling with "UG put stick THROUGH WHEEL. Make AXLE." step. Though in theory my thesis will help with that.

Also, if world-destroying omni-consuming nanites were a serious possibility, nature would have probably beaten us to the punch a loooooonnnng time ago.